I thought I left behind whiny ravings when I left high school and deleted all the preteen drama whores off my Facebook.

Once again, I stand by my basic posit of the problems presented in this paper. The paper itself claims for an absolute certainty in rate and never assigns random probability of results.I mean, fuck, you can't even do that in Chemistry. You can barely do that in Physics! - You sure as hell can't do that with Biological organisms living in a competitive environment where, over time, change (change = compiled mutation over generations) occurs on small scales to show benefit for the species or death for that brand of species.

It assumes Set growth, Set Death, and Set change - none of those in any biological science is ever stated as a constant.

Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.

And, I'm going to go a bit philosophical here -How can anyone in their right mind try this nonsense with set numbers on Life?

Life is a Chaotic System, with the only variable of death being a constant event. Age, mating, acts of nature, random happenstance - all of these can result in any NUMBER of life/death instances, in which any number of a species can have any given number of offspring. All of which these offspring can die at any time from innumerable amount of reasons ranging from competition, disease, sickness, starvation, natural instances, or even genetic deficiency.

The fact that this paper was rejected from publishing after review is so very clear. It's a complete pile of horse shit that would only be taken seriously by people who are either to ignorant to know what they are reading or just degenerate morons who would spit out anything that even remotely makes their case look serious in whole or in part.

Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.

Overall the paper has no new content, it is just a complaint about other authors not using his mangled and erroneous definitions. The author's definitions are mangled and very often he equivocates different things much due to the fact that he deceived himself with his mangled definitions. Very little attention is paid to maintaining a clear language.There are several erroneous misconceptions and self contradictory statements, he assumes certain simplifying elements in order to justify his models and then he applies them to totally opposing cases. Many assumptions are unfounded and just begging the question, other than the fact that author wants to impose certain fictitious limitation to forward his argument there is no other reason to why they should be the way the author claims they are, and in fact he can't justify them because in real situations those limitations are simply not observed at all.Most of his models are unjustified and simply falls out of nowhere despite the fact that very little would be required to justify them. His mathematical ineptitude is clear not only because of the misuse of notation but also because he manages to introduce absurdities even in the most simple of the equations. However even after he has gone trough the trouble of presenting convoluted models they are ultimately pointless because he never follows any of them and doesn't extracts any tangible implications from them or make any meaningful point, it is more an exercise of show and tell then taking any sort of conclusion.There is no data what so ever, he doesn't confront any of his models with physical observations or even makes any numerical simulations which leaves us with a bad taste in the mouth because at the end of the day it is only been an exercise in pointlessness make belief.The text isn't structured, he mixes modeling with critique, self congratulatory prose and commentary. There is also items that serve no purpose other than to make the paper look more scientific for people who just skim it, and overall that is what the paper sums up to. It is an exercise in looking as if there is something scientific.

Now after I have given myself the trouble of reviewing the paper, I do believe YYNJ owns everyone an apology and should be ashamed for trying to peddle this crap.

"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!

I assume it was just another lie by a moderator, but I guess I will find out for sure.

Anachronous Rex wrote:Also, you do realize that even if you hadn't been trolling, I would have been obligated to lock the thread just because the user whom it was directed towards asked me to? You have to calm down and grow up.

I'm requesting, as the one this thread was directed to, that this thread be locked.

YesYouNeedJesus wrote:I assume it was just another lie by a moderator, but I guess I will find out for sure.

Anachronous Rex wrote:Also, you do realize that even if you hadn't been trolling, I would have been obligated to lock the thread just because the user whom it was directed towards asked me to? You have to calm down and grow up.

I'm requesting, as the one this thread was directed to, that this thread be locked.

I am all for the locking of this thread. It can stand as a testament to the refusal of creationists to address simple rebuttals to the arguments they present.

That said, seeing as I think YYNJ is under the impression that locking the thread will bury it and, as it would be rude for MGK's hard work to be overlooked, the thread will be stickied until further notice, as it is an excellent example of how to dissect a paper.

1. Variation exists in all populations and increases with population size. A large population has more variation than a small population within the same species.2. Almost all of that variation is heritable.3. Some of that variation has an effect on survival or mating opportunities. However, most of the variation is neutral, conferring neither an advantage nor disadvantage to the individual. Secondly, characteristics can exist that benefit the group as a whole or a segment of the group rather than one individual.4. Saying that characteristics tend to increase or decrease is not correct. A characteristic that increases survival or mating opportunity has an increased chance of being passed to the next generation and spreading among the population. A characteristic that decreases survival or mating opportunity has a decreased chance of being passed to the next generation or spreading among the population. However, a characteristic can have both positive and negative pressures. A peacock's tail may increase an individual's chances of mating but may also make him more susceptible to predators. And, cooperative care of offspring can prevent an individual from mating while also increasing the survival of the group. In general, positive characteristics have greater odds of increasing unless countered by negative pressures while negative characteristics have greater odds of decreasing unless countered by positive characteristics. However, gene association can also limit variation in a characteristic until a mutation occurs that breaks the association; this is true even if the characteristic has high positive pressure. Conversely, an associated gene with negative characteristics can be continued in the population because it is associated with a gene that is essential.